|
Sir Kodiak posted:Hah, yeah. However, a professional boxer who denies that they're engaging in a sport with risk of lethal injury is either lying or fooling themselves. Well, yeah, of course. I just think the conversation turning towards "you can't knock a dude out he's gonna die" is course-correcting a little too far.
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 09:51 |
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:Well, yeah, of course. I just think the conversation turning towards "you can't knock a dude out he's gonna die" is course-correcting a little too far. Agreed. I was using your comment as a jumping off point. Sir Kodiak fucked around with this message at 21:42 on Aug 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:Well, yeah, of course. I just think the conversation turning towards "you can't knock a dude out he's gonna die" is course-correcting a little too far. Please note the "occasionally" in my statement. Batman fights an entire boxer's career worth of opponents in, like, a weekend.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
mr. stefan posted:There's a difference between a story where Batman refuses to kill (and, by extension, limits and controls his actions as appropriate) and a story where Batman engages in ridiculous action movie violence that only fails to kill via authorial fiat. "Billionaire travels the world, becomes a ninja, builds well-beyond-state-of-the-art technology to fight crime, which btw is being perpetrated by crocodile monsters, killer clowns, a woman who controls plants, etc.. Yep, this all checks out, provided he doesn't knock a person out without causing brain damage" And in a film where an alien slams a guy through several concrete walls at the speed of sound, and then claims a couple scenes later he didn't kill him. Slugworth fucked around with this message at 23:12 on Aug 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
I don't care much about the lengthy killchat (either is fine), but what ARE the essential batman accouterments you might necessary in an adaptation before the character is just a new character you're calling Batman? If you were doing a single story/film about a new batman unrelated to any existing portrayals, would you feel compelled to retain: - cape - batsignal - batmobile - alfred - gordon - bruce wayne as playboy - murdered parents etc. Or is anything fair game if it captures the general spirit of a person whose trauma leads him to an essentially silly nighttime activity that arguably contributes to reduction in crime and/or madvillainy? Just curious, especially as the standard batman iconography becomes more worn. I'm not very familiar with fringe "red son" type stuff in comics history though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 23:20
|
|
|
Slugworth posted:And in a film where an alien slams a guy through several concrete walls at the speed of sound, and then claims a couple scenes later he didn't kill him. Clark says "I didn't kill those people," in reference to the mutilated and burned villagers, not that he didn't kill the guy who was threatening to shoot Lois.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
Slugworth posted:Getting hung up on the medical fallout of a fight while accepting everything else about Batman is.... perplexing to me. It is literally the "no-kill" poo poo that does this, with magic Iron Man scanners that show that the building was uninhabited or full-body Detective Mode scanners that let the audience know that the dude that Batman spiked face-first into the pavement is "unconscious".
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
Drifter posted:Clark says "I didn't kill those people," in reference to the mutilated and burned villagers, not that he didn't kill the guy who was threatening to shoot Lois. Even taking a life that threatens to kill an innocent is so beyond peoples' moral comprehension, that their view of the film's sense of reality becomes distorted.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
At least in most other iterations of Batman (a character I now hate because of this thread) there's a possibility that the people Batman takes on survived. BvS dispenses with this and make it clear that Batman is an unrepentant killer. A man little better than the people he's fighting. Again, if that's what you want, great. Not everyone wants a Batman that's  Super Extreme though.In addition to being the most psychotic Batman, Batfleck is probaby the most naive and stupid. He's a big dumb psycho.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 23:36
|
|
|
Yaws posted:At least in most other iterations of Batman (a character I now hate because of this thread) there's a possibility that the people Batman takes on survived. BvS dispenses with this and make it clear that Batman is an unrepentant killer. A man little better than the people he's fighting. Again, if that's what you want, great. Not everyone wants a Batman that's That you won't accept any form of media where Batman is forced to kill to stop a well armed group of mercenaries is actually the extreme idea. The fact that you consider questioning his "goodness" relative to the people he's fighting as inherently negative speaks volumes. KVeezy3 fucked around with this message at 23:50 on Aug 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 23:45
|
|
|
KVeezy3 posted:Even taking a life that threatens to kill an innocent is so beyond peoples' moral comprehension, that their view of the film's sense of reality becomes distorted.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
Slugworth posted:If that was aimed towards me, I was simply misremembering the quote, for which I apologize. It's not just you, this question of whether Superman killed the rebel leader is all over the internet and is considered a plot hole.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
KVeezy3 posted:Even taking a life that threatens to kill an innocent is so beyond peoples' moral comprehension, that their view of the film's sense of reality becomes distorted. It worked in The Dark Knight.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
computer parts posted:So anti-heroes condone the act of killing by their very existence? I can't come up with a single anti-hero that doesn't kill, so yes. Megaman's Jockstrap posted:The problem here is that Batman is also supposed to be a man. A peak man, but a man. This is totally and completely false. Batman is the world's greatest martial artist. As in, he faced every other martial artist on planet Earth and beat them all, including ones that were actively trying to kill him. He is capable of taking down any foe non-lethally, and would only struggle with top tier martial artists. So maybe 10 people on the entire planet. I reference the following post: Maluco Marinero posted:
SolidSnakesBandana fucked around with this message at 00:16 on Aug 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 00:13
|
|
|
Lady Shiva is the world's greatest martial artist.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
Slugworth posted:And in a film where an alien slams a guy through several concrete walls at the speed of sound Superman is a world class combatant and can expertly target the exact pressure points in a concrete wall required to push someone through it without major trauma
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 00:17
|
|
|
Detective Dog Dick posted:Lady Shiva is the world's greatest martial artist. In New 52 and beyond maybe, I haven't been keeping up
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:I can't come up with a single anti-hero that doesn't kill, so yes. Al Bundy? George Costanza? Daria Morgendorffer?? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fictional_antiheroes (The term is so vague and can be applied so widely that it's almost meaningless unless you narrow it down to specific genres within specific media) Edit: I bet Al, George and Daria have all killed people anyway so SSB's point probably still stands Snowglobe of Doom fucked around with this message at 00:26 on Aug 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
Detective Dog Dick posted:Lady Shiva is the world's greatest martial artist. Mr. Terrific is the third smartest man in the world.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:In New 52 and beyond maybe, I haven't been keeping up She was also that pre-New 52. Heck, I think it was canon that her daugther, Cass Cain, was a better martial artist that Batman.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
Batman not being an executioner actually cuts closer to what is meant by him having a code against killing. He's not out to be Judge Dredd. He doesn't consider himself to have the right to decide who lives or dies. He is aware that if people die in boxing matches, some might die fighting him, which children were generally aware of back before we tried to teach them otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 00:28
|
|
|
Reed Richards is the smartest guy in the world, and that's why he can invent flying cars and teleportation matrixes through uncharted dimensions and poo poo. Just like in real life.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 00:30
|
|
|
Equeen posted:She was also that pre-New 52. Heck, I think it was canon that her daugther, Cass Cain, was a better martial artist that Batman. Didn't Conner Hawke defeat her?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:Al Bundy? George Costanza? Daria Morgendorffer?? Al Bundy never killed anyone. They died later due to unrelated injuries.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:Didn't Conner Hawke defeat her? Uhhh... I'm not sure?  I'm not terribly familar with her character .
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 00:38
|
|
|
Equeen posted:She was also that pre-New 52. Heck, I think it was canon that her daugther, Cass Cain, was a better martial artist that Batman. After doing a bit of research it would seem that there's a lot of conflicting opinions on who the actual top spot is. I think we can safely say that everyone mentioned thus far would belong in the top 5 however.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 00:40
|
|
|
Equeen posted:Uhhh... I'm not sure? It was during a 5 part crossover waaay back. He either beat her or fought her to a standstill.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 00:46
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:Al Bundy? George Costanza? Daria Morgendorffer?? Costanza killed his fiancee
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
KVeezy3 posted:It's not just you, this question of whether Superman killed the rebel leader is all over the internet and is considered a plot hole. What's great about that scene is that it dispenses with any nonsense about the ends justifying the means. The ends are omitted entirely. Superman used lethal force to prevent his girlfriend from being executed. Did the guy survive the lethal force? Who cares? That's irrelevant. Fans are trapped in childish terms like "no-kill rule", when more specific terms - like "justifiable use of lethal force" - reveal that Batman uses lethal force constantly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
My argument is more along the lines of, there is no such thing as a justifiable use of lethal force for a vigilante. You're just a guy killing people. This wouldn't apply to a legally sanctioned official.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 01:14
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:My argument is more along the lines of, there is no such thing as a justifiable use of lethal force for a vigilante. You're just a guy killing people. This wouldn't apply to a legally sanctioned official. It's almost as if the a huge point of the movie is this exact sentence.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
Jerk McJerkface posted:It's almost as if the a huge point of the movie is this exact sentence. Maybe Batman needs a senate hearing too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:My argument is more along the lines of, there is no such thing as a justifiable use of lethal force for a vigilante. You're just a guy killing people. This wouldn't apply to a legally sanctioned official. There's obviously no legal justification, but the whole point of vigilantism is that there may be moral justifications for particular illegal activity. Also, Batman isn't just a vigilante in BvS. His attempted assassination of Superman, and the crimes he commits to enable it, aren't an attempt to enact justice.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:Maybe Batman needs a senate hearing too. That's basically what Clark was trying to do.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 01:41
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:Maybe Batman needs a senate hearing too. That's also what the movie is about. Clark is bitter that Batman gets no media scrutiny because he targets the poor with the help of the police. Then he's patronized for being too idealized. SolidSnakesBandana posted:My argument is more along the lines of, there is no such thing as a justifiable use of lethal force for a vigilante. You're just a guy killing people. This wouldn't apply to a legally sanctioned official. That you think justice can only be legally sanctioned is a little disturbing. Like returning a runaway slave.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 01:49
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Reed Richards is the smartest guy in the world, and that's why he can invent flying cars and teleportation matrixes through uncharted dimensions and poo poo. Just like in real life. But somehow he can't make Professor X walk (permanently).
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 02:15
|
|
|
computer parts posted:But somehow he can't make Professor X walk (permanently). Making an old man walk permanently would be cruel and unusual, though. How would he sleep?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 02:26
|
|
|
KVeezy3 posted:That you think justice can only be legally sanctioned is a little disturbing. Like returning a runaway slave. Compared to vigilantism? And justice and lethal force are not the same thing. Even if it were, a legally sanctioned official would (ideally) have his actions scrutinized and investigated. SolidSnakesBandana fucked around with this message at 02:46 on Aug 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 02:43
|
|
|
Reed could probably fix Chuck's legs but he knows how careless he is and he'd just get himself paralyzed again in a week or so.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 02:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 09:51 |
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:I can't come up with a single anti-hero that doesn't kill, so yes. Umm, that's great and all, but where in the movie's text or subtext does this 'world's greatest martial artist' get established? Furthermore, the scene in question has Batman take on two dozen armed hostiles simultaneously. Many martial arts have ways to control space around them, but 24 armed hostiles (with some disabled weaponry but not all) seems a bit of a stretch in terms of allowing for restraint to be taken. It's the same argument with Man of Steel. Why are we watching if the challenges posed to the heroes don't pose any sort of threat to them? Some (and you) seem to want to assume the authorial intent was that Batman and Superman decided they wouldn't preserve life or avoid collateral damage, rather than that they couldn't.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 02:46
|
|
